·D Decision of the Complaints Committee 01348-14 Hope v Dumfries and Galloway Standard
Summary of
complaint
1. Jonathan Hope complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Dumfries and Galloway Standard had breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Kids porn shame of Queens bidder”, published on 10 August 2014.
2. The article said that the complainant had a criminal
conviction for downloading child pornography, and that the parents of children
involved with a youth football team sponsored by the complainant had been
“angry” when this had been discovered. It said that he had been convicted in
2003 under the name “Steven Hope”. The article also reported that the
complainant claimed to have been involved in the transfer of the footballer
Danny Welbeck, but that this had been denied by the clubs and representatives
of the player.
3. The complainant said that the coverage had
misrepresented his role with the youth football club; he was not actively
involved with the club and did not sponsor the team, although his name had been
put on the back of the shirts as a gesture for his having found the team a
sponsor. He also said that contrary to the claims in the article he had been
trying to broker a deal between Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur,
although he had not spoken to Mr Welbeck or his representative directly.
4. The complainant expressed concern that the journalist
had used his involvement in football as a means to disclose the fact that he
had a spent criminal conviction.
5. The newspaper said that as the complainant’s name had
appeared on the back of the youth football club’s shirts, it had not been
significantly misleading to report that he sponsored the club.
6. After the complainant had been interviewed on the
radio, Danny Welbeck’s representatives had contacted Radio 5 Live to say that
the complainant had not been involved in the deal, even as a middleman. A
representative of the Welbeck brothers told the newspaper “I will spell out the
position of the Welbecks so there is absolutely no room for doubt. Jonathan Hope
is a person we have never heard of, until he went on national radio”. The
newspaper had contacted the player’s representatives and the clubs concerned
who had confirmed that the complainant had no involvement with the transfer.
7. The newspaper said that it was entitled to publish
details of the complainant’s conviction, particularly as it was a matter of
public concern given his involvement with the children’s football club.
8. The newspaper raised serious concerns about the
conduct of the complainant during the course of Ipso’s investigation.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i)The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Findings of the Committee
10. The complainant had appeared on the radio, and was
interviewed on the premise that he was “the man brokering a deal” for Danny
Welbeck, and he had not corrected that description of him. During the course of
the interview he had suggested that he was actively engaged in the deal, and
was in direct discussion with the parties. The reporter subsequently contacted
the complainant and the football clubs concerned. As such, the Committee was
satisfied that there had not been a failure to take care over the accuracy of
the article; there was no breach of Clause 1 (i). The newspaper had been
entitled to report that the clubs denied having any involvement with the
complainant. There was no breach of the Code on this point.
11. The complainant accepted that his name had featured
on the football kit of the youth team in response to his playing a direct role
in arranging the team’s sponsorship. The article reported concerns raised in
relation to his association with children in light of his conviction. In this
context, it had not been significantly misleading to state that he had
sponsored the club. There was no breach of the Code on this point.
12. The selection of material for publication is a matter
for the discretion of individual editors, provided that such editorial
decisions do not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. It had not been
inaccurate to report that the complainant had a previous criminal conviction.
There was no breach of the Code.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 27/03/2015
Date decision issued: 15/05/2015